Ancillary p16INK4a adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

Chung Chin Yao, Lai Fong Kok, Ming Yung Lee, Po Hui Wang, Tina S. Wu, Yeu Sheng Tyan, Ya Wen Cheng, Mei Fen Kung, Chih Ping Han

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behavior. The choice of appropriate therapeutic plan depends indeed on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of five immunomarkers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA, and p16INK4a), but also evaluate whether p16INK4a adds value to the ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel characteristics in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. TMA sections were immunostained with five anti-bodies, by avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised by using the semi-quantitative scoring system. Results: The four respective markers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA) and their combined panel expressions showed significant (p <0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. The p16INK4a marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p <0.05) between the two sites of origin, but did not demonstrate to have any supplementary value to the 4-marker panel. Conclusion: According to our data, when there is histomorphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 4-marker (ER/PR/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16INK4a-marker testing does not add value to the 4-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)405-413
Number of pages9
JournalArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Volume280
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Adenocarcinoma
Neoplasms
Avidin
Biotin
Hysterectomy
Paraffin
Formaldehyde
Staining and Labeling
Antigens

Keywords

  • Carcinoembryonic antigen
  • Endocervical
  • Endocervical adenocarcinomas
  • Endometrial
  • Endometrial adenocarcinomas
  • Estrogen receptor
  • Hematoxylin and eosin
  • Immunohistochemistry
  • P16
  • Progesterone receptor
  • Tissue microarray
  • Vimentin

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this

Ancillary p16INK4a adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. / Yao, Chung Chin; Kok, Lai Fong; Lee, Ming Yung; Wang, Po Hui; Wu, Tina S.; Tyan, Yeu Sheng; Cheng, Ya Wen; Kung, Mei Fen; Han, Chih Ping.

In: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vol. 280, No. 3, 09.2009, p. 405-413.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yao, Chung Chin ; Kok, Lai Fong ; Lee, Ming Yung ; Wang, Po Hui ; Wu, Tina S. ; Tyan, Yeu Sheng ; Cheng, Ya Wen ; Kung, Mei Fen ; Han, Chih Ping. / Ancillary p16INK4a adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. In: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2009 ; Vol. 280, No. 3. pp. 405-413.
@article{7ec428d081d14a02be521eef5709fb52,
title = "Ancillary p16INK4a adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study",
abstract = "Purpose: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behavior. The choice of appropriate therapeutic plan depends indeed on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of five immunomarkers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA, and p16INK4a), but also evaluate whether p16INK4a adds value to the ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel characteristics in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. TMA sections were immunostained with five anti-bodies, by avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised by using the semi-quantitative scoring system. Results: The four respective markers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA) and their combined panel expressions showed significant (p <0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. The p16INK4a marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p <0.05) between the two sites of origin, but did not demonstrate to have any supplementary value to the 4-marker panel. Conclusion: According to our data, when there is histomorphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 4-marker (ER/PR/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16INK4a-marker testing does not add value to the 4-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.",
keywords = "Carcinoembryonic antigen, Endocervical, Endocervical adenocarcinomas, Endometrial, Endometrial adenocarcinomas, Estrogen receptor, Hematoxylin and eosin, Immunohistochemistry, P16, Progesterone receptor, Tissue microarray, Vimentin",
author = "Yao, {Chung Chin} and Kok, {Lai Fong} and Lee, {Ming Yung} and Wang, {Po Hui} and Wu, {Tina S.} and Tyan, {Yeu Sheng} and Cheng, {Ya Wen} and Kung, {Mei Fen} and Han, {Chih Ping}",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s00404-008-0859-1",
language = "English",
volume = "280",
pages = "405--413",
journal = "Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics",
issn = "0932-0067",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ancillary p16INK4a adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

AU - Yao, Chung Chin

AU - Kok, Lai Fong

AU - Lee, Ming Yung

AU - Wang, Po Hui

AU - Wu, Tina S.

AU - Tyan, Yeu Sheng

AU - Cheng, Ya Wen

AU - Kung, Mei Fen

AU - Han, Chih Ping

PY - 2009/9

Y1 - 2009/9

N2 - Purpose: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behavior. The choice of appropriate therapeutic plan depends indeed on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of five immunomarkers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA, and p16INK4a), but also evaluate whether p16INK4a adds value to the ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel characteristics in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. TMA sections were immunostained with five anti-bodies, by avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised by using the semi-quantitative scoring system. Results: The four respective markers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA) and their combined panel expressions showed significant (p <0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. The p16INK4a marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p <0.05) between the two sites of origin, but did not demonstrate to have any supplementary value to the 4-marker panel. Conclusion: According to our data, when there is histomorphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 4-marker (ER/PR/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16INK4a-marker testing does not add value to the 4-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

AB - Purpose: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behavior. The choice of appropriate therapeutic plan depends indeed on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of five immunomarkers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA, and p16INK4a), but also evaluate whether p16INK4a adds value to the ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel characteristics in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. TMA sections were immunostained with five anti-bodies, by avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised by using the semi-quantitative scoring system. Results: The four respective markers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA) and their combined panel expressions showed significant (p <0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. The p16INK4a marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p <0.05) between the two sites of origin, but did not demonstrate to have any supplementary value to the 4-marker panel. Conclusion: According to our data, when there is histomorphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 4-marker (ER/PR/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16INK4a-marker testing does not add value to the 4-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

KW - Carcinoembryonic antigen

KW - Endocervical

KW - Endocervical adenocarcinomas

KW - Endometrial

KW - Endometrial adenocarcinomas

KW - Estrogen receptor

KW - Hematoxylin and eosin

KW - Immunohistochemistry

KW - P16

KW - Progesterone receptor

KW - Tissue microarray

KW - Vimentin

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349620863&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349620863&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00404-008-0859-1

DO - 10.1007/s00404-008-0859-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 19153755

AN - SCOPUS:70349620863

VL - 280

SP - 405

EP - 413

JO - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

JF - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

SN - 0932-0067

IS - 3

ER -